Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[friend of]

Fortunately, 95% of our modern tech can be electrified to run on clean power from nuclear and renewables

That's another thing I don't get. Why are so many climate change proponents against nuclear energy?

 

[eclipsenow]

That's another thing I don't get. Why are so many climate change proponents against nuclear energy?

I'm sorry but who said you're the only one to ask questions and raise objections the whole time?
Did you watch the video I listed above about how CO2 actually traps heat?
Here it is again.
Please watch.
Then I'll answer your next question.
it's short

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, if a usofan puts out twice the carbon as a Han, then the usofan should look to his/her behavior before trying to solve the world's problems on the backs of the poor.

I think one of these is about me, but I'm not sure which.

 

[friend of]

I'm sorry but who said you're the only one to ask questions and raise objections the whole time?

That's something I'm allowed to do on a free and open forum.

I watched the video, now answer my questions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's another thing I don't get. Why are so many climate change proponents against nuclear energy?

Part of the problem with your question is the term "climate change proponents". (No one is for having climate change.)

It lumps together two groups of people into one and that is part of the problem of understanding.

There are those that study climate and report on the causes and impacts as well as possible solutions.

And there are climate activists (if you like). Those that talk loud about having to do something and often in accusatory fashions. ("Your car is destroying our planet.")

This latter group of activists come from the environmental activist tree in the US and that movement started about 50 years ago with strong ties to the anti-war movement, anti-nuclear weapons movement and they were often anti-capitalist, anti-corporate (especially corporate polluters) and often fought against nuclear power (along with their fear of all things nuclear). That effort against nuclear power plus nuclear accidents in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Ukraine in 1986 really trashed the public opinion of nuclear power and even those in the environmental movement not tied to the old anti-war/anti-capitalist aspects of its early days are still very reluctant to raise nuclear power as a very-low carbon alternative.

No one on this site has been arguing against fossil fuels *and* against nuclear power. Not that I've seen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh no, the ocean is heating up by half a degree. It's the end of the world.

Just a more interesting one for people in areas where the impact will be most noticeable.

Why a half-degree temperature rise is a big deal – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A small difference in global temperature rise can make a big difference to sea level, coral reefs, crops and more.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[friend of]

Part of the problem with your question is the term "climate change proponents". (No one is for having climate change.)

It lumps together two groups of people into one and that is part of the problem of understanding.

There are those that study climate and report on the causes and impacts as well as possible solutions.

And there are climate activists (if you like). Those that talk loud about having to do something and often in accusatory fashions. ("Your car is destroying our planet.")

This latter group of activists come from the environmental activist tree in the US and that movement started about 50 years ago with strong ties to the anti-war movement, anti-nuclear weapons movement and they were often anti-capitalist, anti-corporate (especially corporate polluters) and often fought against nuclear power (along with their fear of all things nuclear). That effort against nuclear power plus nuclear accidents in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Ukraine in 1986 really trashed the public opinion of nuclear power and even those in the environmental movement not tied to the old anti-war/anti-capitalist aspects of its early days are still very reluctant to raise nuclear power as a very-low carbon alternative.

No one on this site has been arguing against fossil fuels *and* against nuclear power. Not that I've seen.

Climate change activists then. They seem to prefer wind and solar to nuclear power, even when the output of wind and solar is a pittance compared with what nuclear is capable of. Nuclear is also relatively clean compared to what you get out of it. Why aren't more Climate Change activists in favor of nuclear?

 

[eclipsenow]

Climate change activists then. They seem to prefer wind and solar to nuclear power, even when the output of wind and solar is a pittance compared with what nuclear is capable of. Nuclear is also relatively clean compared to what you get out of it. Why aren't more Climate Change activists in favor of nuclear?

FUD. Fear Uncertainty Doubt. The same reason many Republicans doubt climate change science, because "It's them Communists." The anti-nuclear vibe from many Greenies comes from "Dr" Helen Caldicott - an Australian paediatrician that promotes some rather extreme and unscientific paranoia about everything nuclear and has done so for decades. I think she was instrumental in influencing big environmental groups (Sierra Club in America, ACF in Australia) to be anti-nuclear - and then with Chernobyl and Fukushima, the rest snowballed.

So when Greenies here nuclear, they think "It's them money gouging Corporations! They're gonna kill us all!"

I was anti-nuclear the first 40 years of my life as just part of my Australian culture. It's just in the air we breathe. Other than a small medical facility generating medical isotopes, we don't have any nuclear in Australia. It's illegal! Then I met some people online, unlearned many of the myths I had picked up - and changed my mind! Nuclear waste can be 'burned' in breeder reactors and then we get 90 to 100 times the energy out of each bit of uranium or thorium. This effectively means America already has enough nuclear 'waste' to run her for 1000 years without mining any more uranium! (But it does take a while to 'breed' the new stuff from the old spent fuel rods.)

But June last year I changed my mind again. I'm not anti-nuclear but basically think renewables are so cheap we can now Overbuild them for winter. If winter halves your wind and solar output, then double your wind and solar! Build for winter. Solar is 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard). That's not firmed - not including the cost of storage - but Overbuilding for winter reduces that cost of storage.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Climate change activists then. They seem to prefer wind and solar to nuclear power, even when the output of wind and solar is a pittance compared with what nuclear is capable of. Nuclear is also relatively clean compared to what you get out of it. Why aren't more Climate Change activists in favor of nuclear?

I thought I explained why (broadly). (Nuclear is also very expensive.)

 

[eclipsenow]

...even when the output of wind and solar is a pittance...

Wind and solar are the largest new sources of power each year.
The war in Ukraine has made Europe pivot even faster towards renewables.
Solar and wind are now the cheapest power sources by far, even with the costs of transmission and storage factored in.

Solar is doubling worldwide every 4 years, which is much faster than oil’s doubling every decade in the 20th century. In the next 10 to 15 years we will see exponential growth of all renewables and EV's. R

emember how exponential curves start of really slow for a long long time, and then suddenly everything happens at once. EG: The old example of bacteria in a petri dish. Assume you know it doubles every minute, but the dish will be full in an hour. When is the dish half full? In 59 minutes! The bacteria has been almost invisible for 50 minutes then in the last 10 minutes goes from a tiny blotch to 1/16 the dish, 1/8 the dish, 1/4, 1/2, and suddenly the dish is full!

Right now - if we look at the global picture today and compare it to the petri dish metaphor above - solar is just becoming visible. It’s been doubling for a while. But now that they are SO cheap - the exponential is taking off. We will be SHOCKED at how fast things happen.
Australia will be 80 to 90% renewable by 2030! There's a huge surge in solar production under way – and Australia could show the world how to use it

Globally by 2025 so many solar factories being built today will be finished that they will produce 940 GW of solar panels each year, FOUR TIMES all the solar built in 2022. That's 5.8% of ALL THE WORLD’S power each year. In 17 years from 2025 to 2042, that's ALL today's electricity from solar. Then add wind in, and a little nuclear here and there - and you can see the end date of fossil fuels getting closer and closer. [Episode #184] – EROI of RE | The Energy Transition Show

10% of all new cars sold globally are EV's.
By 2030 that should be about 50%
Tesla have their 40 ton Semi, and Australia have Janus battery swap for the big 100 ton rigs.
Mining trucks are even being converted to electric.
People are installing heat pumps instead of gas or oil heaters.
"Electrify Everything" is happening as the energy medium of exchange in a post-fossil fuel world is not oil or gas, but electrons.
As we "Electrify Everything" we will probably DOUBLE the demand for electricity, but it will also be cheaper than oil and gas.
Again, demand for these things is accelerating.

As soon as western nations Electrify Everything and get substantially off oil and gas - we can stop funding regimes that don't like us very much! It's the patriotic thing to do - both to protect us from climate change AND extortion from Petro-Dictators.

 

[eclipsenow]

Wind and solar are the largest new sources of power each year. The war in Ukraine has made Europe pivot even faster towards renewables. Solar and wind are now the cheapest power sources by far, even with the costs of transmission and storage factored in. Solar is doubling worldwide every 4 years, which is much faster than oil’s doubling every decade in the 20th century. In the next 10 to 15 years we will see exponential growth of all renewables and EV's.


Remember that exponential curves start of really slow, but then suddenly everything happens at once. EG: The old example of bacteria in a Petri dish. Assume you know it doubles every minute, but the dish will be full in an hour. When is the dish half full? In 59 minutes! The bacteria has been almost invisible for 50 minutes then in the last 10 minutes goes from a tiny blotch to one sixteenth of the dish to an eight, then a quarter, then a half, and suddenly the dish is full!

Right now - if we look at the global picture today and compare it to the petri dish metaphor, solar is just becoming visible. It’s been doubling for a while. But now that it is SO cheap - the exponential is taking off. We will be SHOCKED at how fast things happen. Australia will be 80 to 90% renewable by 2030! There's a huge surge in solar production under way – and Australia could show the world how to use it

GLOBALLY by 2025 so many solar factories being built today will be finished that they will produce 940 GW of solar panels each year, FOUR TIMES all the solar built in 2022. That's 5.8% of ALL THE WORLD’S power each year. In 17 years from 2025 to 2042, that's ALL today's electricity from solar. [Episode #184] – EROI of RE | The Energy Transition Show

However electricity demand will double as we ‘Electrify Everything’ and move from oil transportation and gas fired industry and oil and gas heating to EV’s and electric industrial heating and heat pumps for homes. 10% of all new cars sold globally are EV's, but by 2030 that should be about half. Then add extra wind power and a little nuclear power in some nations, you can see the end date of fossil fuels getting closer and closer.

As soon as western nations Electrify Everything and get substantially off oil and gas - we can stop funding regimes that don't like us very much! It's the patriotic thing to do - both to protect us from climate change AND extortion from Petro-Dictators.

 

[friend of]

Wind and solar require tons and tons ofof mined metals to make all of that stuff to replace the current infrastructure. It's going to make our adversaries (China) very rich.

 

[eclipsenow]

Wind and solar require tons and tons ofof mined metals to make all of that stuff to replace the current infrastructure. It's going to make our adversaries (China) very rich.

Have you not kept up with the new industries starting in Australia and America? It's going to make US very rich as well.

ALL RENEWABLES CAN BE MADE FROM ABUNDANT MATERIALS: Sometimes renewables use rare earth’s for a specific performance boost - but this is usually a more expensive niche market. Michaux just cherry-picks these and ignores all the 'plainer' brands. EG: 95% of Solar brands use silicon - which is 27% of the Earth’s crust. Wind is made from iron (5%), aluminium (8%) and fibreglass (renewable glass fibres and renewable polyester resins). Half of Tesla’s batteries are LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate). The USGS reserves from 2022 show we have TEN TIMES the lithium we need for a world of 1.4 billion LPF EV's. China’s BYD “Seagull” even has an EV that uses SODIUM batteries! I’ve collected evidence here. Rare earths not required in renewables or batteries

 

[friend of]

Well I'm spent.

It's not that I'm against green infrastructure entirely, I would just like the transition to be reasonable, realistic. Like, gas/oil phazed out sometime in the 22nd century, not the pipedream that is "zero emissions by 2050"

 

[eclipsenow]

Well I'm spent.

It's not that I'm against green infrastructure entirely, I would just like the transition to be reasonable, realistic. Like, gas/oil phazed out sometime in the 22nd century, not the pipedream that is "zero emissions by 2050"

That sounds like personal preference without any rational economic justification.
Your vibe - that's it.

I'm talking about climate change and western independence from petro-dictators like Putin and the Middle Eastern variety.

You're talking about not wanting to be rushed.

It's like you've got no idea how fast disruptive technologies are adopted.

I'd like the sale of any new internal combustion engines to be ILLEGAL by 2035 to give us time to phase out all oil and gas over the following 15 years.

 

[friend of]

That sounds like personal preference without any rational economic justification.
Your vibe - that's it.

I'm talking about climate change and western independence from petro-dictators like Putin and the Middle Eastern variety.

You're talking about not wanting to be rushed.

It's like you've got no idea how fast disruptive technologies are adopted.

I'd like the sale of any new internal combustion engines to be ILLEGAL by 2035 to give us time to phase out all oil and gas over the following 15 years.

By 2035? That's ludacris and untenable. It's unrealistic. It's draconian to force people into that. Making everything electric is hardly financially responsible. In Canada we have like the world's 3rd largest oil reserves and we aren't even tapping them, which would make the county rich and provide tens of thousands of jobs to people. But no, let's shoot ourselves in the foot over climate change, which we don't ultimately have control over. If Canada wasn't run by climate fanatics we could have sold our oil and gas to the EU and loosened Europe's dependence on Russian oil, which would have dealt a body blow to their war efforts.

 

[eclipsenow]

By 2035? That's ludacris and untenable. It's unrealistic.

You obviously don't get how serious peak oil, climate change, and energy independence from petro-dictators actually are!

Australian motorists may have little choice but to buy an electric vehicle within 12 years, experts say, after Europe effectively banned the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2035.​

​

The European Union has formally approved plans to cut car emissions by 100 per cent by 2035, following similar restrictions in countries including China, Japan, Canada and Hong Kong.​

​

​

EU ban on petrol cars will force Australian drivers to go electric

Australian motorists may have little choice but to buy an electric vehicle within 12 years after Europe effectively banned the sale of petrol cars by 2035.

www.smh.com.au

It's draconian to force people into that. Making everything electric is hardly financially responsible.

It's the opposite! Making everything electric has ALREADY brought prices down and will create an era in which "Big battery" beats Big Oil.
EV's don't need servicing, and while some are more expensive up front they are already competitive with an oil car over their lifetime. Nothing beats charging a car from solar panels on your roof, and the fact that there is no Internal Combustion Engine to service is also an economic bonus!

In Canada we have like the world's 3rd largest oil reserves and we aren't even tapping them,

Why would you? You'd be an international pariah for the climate damage and probably bankrupt your country with sanctions!
Go green, and become an economic powerhouse into the future.

But no, let's shoot ourselves in the foot over climate change,

Or get in on the ground floor for the future of your economy.
Don't be Kodak when the digital cameras are rolling out!
"Electrify everything" is the digital vs Kodak of our age.
Get in quick or you'll miss out!

which we don't ultimately have control over.

Humans do if we continue to raise our CO2 emissions.

 

[Frank Robert]

And your proposed solution is what? Carbon taxes? Carbon taxes that grind the faces of the poor and working class people? The real culprits behind climate change will never be addressed because that would require corporations to stop selling product, people to stop driving automobiles, people to stop eating meat completely, volcanoes to stop exploding, etc. Not going to happen.

There are no solutions.

We will continue to burn fossil fuels until the EROI drops to 1. Renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels. Fusion is always away 20 years out. If you are not familiar with "The Limits to Growth" you can get a free copy from the link.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's another thing I don't get. Why are so many climate change proponents against nuclear energy?

It is not so much people against nuclear as the difficulty and costs to build them. For example: It took 43 years to build the second reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant in Spring City, Tennessee, which proceeded in fits and starts since the project began in 1973.

Another example: Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost.

Also the major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes.

 

[eclipsenow]

There are no solutions.

We will continue to burn fossil fuels until the EROI drops to 1. Renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels. Fusion is always away 20 years out. If you are not familiar with "The Limits to Growth" you can get a free copy from the link.

Welcome to peak oil doomerism 101. Been there, done that, presented material to the NSW Upper House cross bench, co-ordinated an "End of Suburbia" half-hour cut (with permission of the producers) that was presented in the NSW Parliament theatre. Had various exchanges with James Howard Kunstler. Got the mental health issues after 19 years of it.

The EROEI of renewables is FINE.
Even the old doomer Charles Hall's co-founder of the EROEI concept is now saying solar has double the EROEI of oil. I mean, as I show here, Doomers (like Mike Stasse) LOVE to quote Hall and Murphy's old paper. But not so much with Murphy's new paper!

Arch-Doomer Mike Stasse quotes pessimistic old EROEI work but ignores optimistic recent work by the same author!

Mike Stasse’s latest trick is to promote a 13 year old study by (now Emeritus Professor) Charles Hall and Professor David Murphy that concludes nuclear EROEI is too low. The problem is, Stass…

eclipsenow.wordpress.com

Normal economic pressures for efficiency have reduced the materials included and increased the energy output per unit energy invested.
Other studies show the EROEI is fine.

https://medium.com/@erofeev.yury/to-the-question-of-eroi-eroei-of-solar-energy-c68a10e545e2

What's the EROI of Solar?

There's a graph making rounds lately showing the comparative EROIs of different electricity production methods. (EROI is Energy Return On Investment - how much energy we get back if we spend 1 unit of energy.

rameznaam.com

EROI of solar energy < Vikram Solar

What is energy returned on energy invested (EROI)? Energy returned on energy invested (known as EROI or sometimes EROEI) is the ratio of the amount of

www.vikramsolar.com

“Electrify Everything” makes everything more efficient, and lower Energy Return power sources get more bang for their buck!

While oil was this incredibly dense energy source with a very high EROEI - the Internal Combustion Engine is terribly inefficient. Diesel wastes 50% of the energy as it burns, and petroleum is worse and throws out 80% of the energy in a gasoline car. It’s all thrown away as heat and only 20% of the gasoline turns into what we want - forward motion! That's 1/5th the energy doing what we want. How Efficient are Engines: Thermodynamics and Combustion Efficiency

Electric cars only throw away 23% - and convert the 77% other energy into forward motion. That's almost 4/5ths of the energy doing what we want. Are electric cars more efficient than combustion or hybrid cars?

Only 1/5th of gasoline works, but with EV's only 1/5th of it is waste.

How does all this work out with EROEI? It appears oil HAD to have a higher EROEI (as measured by mere BTU’s at the well head) because burning it in an Internal Combustion Engine is SO wasteful! Instead of asking how much thermal energy there is in a barrel of oil when counting the EROEI, maybe we should emphasise what we really want - how FAR that oil takes you? Instead of measuring solar’s EROEI as “only” 10 times the energy it took to make the solar panel - what are those solar panels DOING with that EROEI? What work are they achieving by going into electric motors that USE 4/5ths rather than WASTE 4/5ths the energy?

In other words - to measure like with like - should we be dividing oil’s EROEI by how much more wasteful the ICE is? An ICE wastes 3.4 times more energy than the EV. Should we divide oil's EROEI by that much? Is the whole notion of oil’s super-high EROEI questionable now that we’ve seen how pathetically inefficient the ICE is? Is the whole notion of solar’s ‘pathetic’ EROEI also invalid - at least in the car part of the transport sector?

Then there’s the energy SYSTEM to consider. The worldwide oil market burns a lot of oil mining it in foreign lands, shipping it around the world and then driving it up and down highways. Solar panels just have to be installed once every 30 years! Then with an EV you've got an oil refinery on your roof!

Global shipping: When every nation has their own renewable energy, we will not have to ship oil, gas, or coal around the world. That means 40% of global shipping will just stop! There are a variety of options to replace shipping bunker oil with clean fuels - but one of them is to use a small ThorCon nuclear reactor in each ship. (ThorCon is a Molten Salt Reactor that cannot melt down as it is already a liquid.) IF we install them in the remaining ships, they go 30% faster. This means each ship is now carrying 30% more cargo in the same time. This means we're down to less than half of global shipping, with less trains and trucks carrying the dirty stuff around as well.

Local power efficiencies: When we've "Electrified Everything" especially transport, so many more options become viable. Australia has some of the biggest trucks in the world. Janus Australia have a battery-swap system for trucks that can carry 100 tons. They go 400km or 500km, then just swap the huge batteries. A guy on a forklift does it. This also means the batteries don't have to fast charge - which is less stress on the local grid and less stress on the batteries. They estimate they can run 10 trucks just from the warehouse roof! In a country town between the big cities, a Janus battery swap might even consider buying a local paddock to add more solar for their battery charging. With enough solar charging enough cheap batteries during they day, they can stock up fresh batteries for the night. It's just THAT cheap! Janus Electric

SUMMARY: Electrifying everything will not only solve climate change, increase national energy independence and security, decrease long expensive supply lines, decrease pollution and lung disease in the population, and get us into an energy system that could last millions of years - but it is also just more efficient and will ultimately be cheaper and more convenient. You'll see. It's coming, fast!